Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 12

• 0%

  Locky122 months ago

  Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy-written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights

  THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

  The senate realizes (unlike you) that maybe we should read emails and listen to phone calls sent from Kandahar to the U.S. or any email if it comes through a U.S. router.

  If someone you cared about was killed and we didn't do that, you'd be the first to bitch and sue.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    bubba22 months ago

    You absolutely do NOT get it.

    They are not listening just to "terrorist" communications. They don't even know WHO the terrorists are!

    They are listening in and reading DOMESTIC communications - you know, your phone calls to your girlfriend or your emails to your buddies.

    The ORIGINAL FISA law required subpoenas for wiretapping - it was a SECRET court but JUSTIFICATION was required for review by an INDEPENDENT set of judges to authorize the government to tap YOUR lines.

    But now, they can listen and read EVERYTHING YOU are saying and writing whenever they want, REGARDLESS of whether or not they have any actual reason to do so.

    BIG BROTHER is alive and well - enjoy it in your ignorance.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      mntnman4442 months ago

      People like locky don't care about giving up rights as long as it soothes their fear...ah,but try changing the protections of the 2nd,even one word....and I think he will have a different opinion.

      The 4th was trashed a long time ago and and the greatest threat is because of the drug war.

      Reply
  • 0%

    disraeli2 months ago

    Locky,

    For your edification the following passage, originally in the Constitution, is quoted in the article.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Clearly that covers your claim regarding privacy. Even if it doesn't to your satisfaction how about the 9th Amendment which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Reply
• 0%

  Locky122 months ago

  1) Emails were NEVER private. They were always like sending a postcard which anybody could read.

  2) Time is of the essence when terrorists plot. I'm not plotting anything. Are you?

  3) YOU DO NOT HAVE PRIVACY WHERE YOU NEVER HAD PRIVACY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    disraeli2 months ago

    This does not just include e-mails. It includes all communication, including phone calls. What this legislation eliminates is the need for any specific warrants to cover such survaillance. That is a clear gutting of the 4th Amendment which explicitly provides that warrants are required describing with specificity the person or persons and the place or places to be searched.

    Why are you in such a rush to give up a basic right?

    Reply
• 0%

  aniokly2 months ago

  The important part of this bill, immunity for the Telecoms is intact. Those people stepped up, and helped the Government identify the terrorists protected by the Clinton Justice Department. Obama swore to his God he would filibuster that part, but he didn't, and he won't. He is getting ready to jetison his closest supporters.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    disraeli2 months ago

    Ani,

    "Those people stepped up" and broke the law. What sort of precedent do you want to set. The President orders you to do something clearly illegal and you do it. Why? Because you were following orders. That particular defense has been tried and it didn't work.

    You claim conservative credentials, yet you have no interest in conserving either the constitution or the rule of law.

    I do not understand.

    Reply
  • 0%

    jordan112 months ago

    The important part of this bill, immunity for the Telecoms is intact. Those people stepped up, and helped the Government identify the terrorists protected by the Clinton Justice Department.>>>>>

    How stupid your remark is. My gawd. How can you be so wrong.

    Reply
• 0%

  bubba22 months ago

  disraeli --

  I think BOTH Locky12 and aniokly FAILED to read the excerpt from our Constitution that you posted above.

  So, in the interest of attempting to educate them - although I don't expect much success - here it is again ...

  For THEIR edification the following passage, originally IN THE CONSTITUTION, is quoted in the article.

  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

  Reply
• 0%

  PatrioticAmerican2 months ago

  You guys have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to fisa. Noone is listening to you tell your girlfreind how beautiful shes and crap like that . All electronic conversations (emails and phone calls Are ran thru a computer that looks for certain key phases and if it picks up on those key phases then it sends out an alert and that line of conversation is then scrutinized a little further to see if it is a valid threat if not it is forgotten about. so unless you are saying things that can be considered as terrorist act, then you have nothing to worry about, and if you are saying that crap then you should be listened too

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    disraeli2 months ago

    So if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?

    Why then did the Constitution include a prohibition against such searches? Surely the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument was as available in 1776 as it is in 2008. They, the founders, men of prescient intellect that goes beyond me, rejected that argument and that position. They saw first hand what the capricious application of state authority vested in the arbitrary hand of a monarch did and they rejected it. The proof of that rests in the safeguards they built into the constitution. Safeguards you are willing to surrender for no good reason.

    The existing FISA legislation requires that the government obtain a warrant in camera from a special FISA court. Of the approximately 20,000 warrant applications made to that court only 5 have been rejected. The government has a 99.98% chance of getting what it wants.

    The current legislation eliminates judicial oversight. Why?

    Reply